Fox & Friends stoked fears that faith-based loan accommodations for some Muslims in Seattle might fund terrorism and go against "American values," despite the fact that faith-based financing is widely practiced around the world and available to all religions.

Seattle's mayor and community leaders released a list of recommendations this month to bring more affordable housing to the city. To increase home ownership, the committee suggested bank lenders explore ways to extend loans to Muslim residents who follow Sharia law, which prohibits the payment of interest on loans.

Fox & Friendsdecried the recommendation as "funding terror" on July 23. Fox Business anchor Cheryl Casone alleged, "Critics over the years have voiced concerns that this would allow Muslim extremists a new way to use the U.S. financial system to launder money," and an on-screen graphic read:

Co-host Steve Doocy later worried that the loans amounted to "discrimination" in favor of Muslims, while network analyst Peter Johnson, Jr, said that it "opens up a lot of questions" such as concerns about "legitimatizing a law that is really inimical to American values."

But faith-based financial accommodations are not specific to Islam -- Christian denominations benefit from them as well -- and options for Sharia-compliant loans are increasingly common.

Catholic and Christian denominations such as Lutherans similarly benefit from financial instruments that accommodate their religious beliefs, such as faith-based mutual funds. As The Wall Street Journalreported:

Faith-based mutual funds typically screen out stocks of companies that violate the tenets of a given religion or religious denomination. A Muslim fund is likely to screen out companies related to pork production, for example, while a Catholic fund can avoid a maker of contraceptives.

[...]

In looking at faith-based funds, be aware that the stock-picking methods vary widely from fund to fund. And potential investors should avoid making assumptions about a fund's screens or its stance on a moral issue based solely on its expressed religious affiliation, says David Kathman, a senior mutual-fund analyst at Morningstar Inc.

For example, Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, a nonprofit investment firm, doesn't screen funds based on religious principles, but donates a portion of its profits to charitable causes. Interested investors should study a fund's prospectus, information on its website and recent shareholder reports.

The Ave Maria mutual fund group, a Catholic fund family, uses negative screens based on a narrow set of moral issues important to its investor base, says George Schwartz, president of the funds. Following rules set by an advisory board, the funds avoid investing in companies that make contraceptives, conduct embryonic stem-cell research or contribute corporate funds to Planned Parenthood, a major provider of abortions and contraceptive services, Mr. Schwartz says. The funds also screen out companies involved with pornography and other adult entertainment, among others, he says.

Shariah-compliant financing makes up "more than $1.6 trillion in assets worldwide" and is continuing to grow, according to USA Today. Like other faith-based accommodations, it simply allows for payment through other methods besides interest.:

Big and small investors are increasingly dipping their toes in the world of Shariah-compliant financing, a sector that has grown to more than $1.6 trillion in assets worldwide over the past three decades. It's one that analysts see as having the potential for even greater growth as the Muslim population grows in the U.S. and Europe.

Earlier this month, Luxembourg issued a $254 million, five-year Islamic bond, known as sukuk. Meanwhile, Hong Kong last month completed its first sale of Islamic debt raising $1 billion. That came after Britain in June became the first Western nation to issue sukuk, an Arabic word that roughly translates as "certificates."

Sukuk act much like traditional bonds, delivering payments to investors until maturity. To comply with Sharia, the bonds have to be tied to some sort of physical asset. Instead of interest, investors are being rewarded with a share of the profit derived from the asset.

Goldman Sachs and HSBC are among western financial service behemoths that have introduced sukuk in recent years. And in the U.S. for the last decade, a number of banks have been arranging for mortgages and auto loans for their Muslim clients that are permissible under Islamic law.

Fears of "discrimination" and terrorism stand in stark contrast to Fox News' handling of other faith-based accommodations -- the network hadnoproblemchampioning Christian corporation Hobby Lobby's lawsuit against the Obama Administration that sought a religious exemption from the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate. But in this case, Islam is involved, and Fox has a long history of pushing anti-Muslim rhetoric and hyping fears about Islam.

Three of Rupert Murdoch's largest and most powerful news outlets promoted baseless conspiracy theories that Google is using its alleged "close ties" with the Obama administration to receive favorable treatment and to push its policy agenda. Murdoch has a long history of attacking Google.

On March 24, News Corp's Wall Street Journalreported on the purportedly close ties between the Obama administration and Google after discovering that Google employees have visited the White House multiple times since President Obama took office. The piece went on to allege that Google used its ties with the White House to get favorable action from a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) antitrust probe into the company.

The New York Post (News Corp) went further on March 28 in an article titled "Google controls what we buy, the news we read - and Obama's policies." Thearticle speculated that Google has used its influence and financial contributions to the Obama administration to receive favors including net neutrality regulation, favorable FTC action, and contracts to fix the Affordable Care Act's website. The piece speculated on "what's coming next: politically filtered information."

21st Century Fox's Fox News echoed the New York Post during the March 30 edition of Fox & Friends, with co-host Clayton Morris claiming "the same search engine that controls our news also controls the White House." During the show, Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo claimed that Google was "being investigated, the president dropped it -- net neutrality -- Google wanted the president to go that way." Bartiromo also speculated on whether Google was "editing" the news "to make it more favorable for the president."

But the Wall Street Journal admitted that the "FTC closed its investigation after Google agreed to make voluntary changes to its business practices." And the FTC pushed back critically to the Journal's piece, writing:

The article suggests that a series of disparate and unrelated meetings involving FTC officials and executive branch officials or Google representatives somehow affected the Commission's decision to close the search investigation in early 2013. Not a single fact is offered to substantiate this misleading narrative.

Rupert Murdoch, head of both News Corp and Twenty-First Century Fox, has a history of attacking Google. Murdoch has accused Google of being "piracy leaders," and in 2009 found himself in a war of words against Google and threatened to block his content from the search engine.

Fox's Clayton Morris: Al Sharpton Is "Calling To Kill Cops"

Fox & Friends Sunday repeatedly spliced footage of Al Sharpton speaking at a Washington, D.C. "Justice for All" march with footage from a separate event in New York City where some in the crowd chanted for "dead cops" to claim Sharpton is "calling to kill cops."

The December 14 edition of Fox & Friends Sunday opened with video from a December 13 march in New York City where some protesters chanted, "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now." Co-host Anna Kooiman set up the footage by saying, "Thousands march with Al Sharpton against the police," and later promised "more from Sharpton's 'March for Justice.'"

But the footage of protesters chanting anti-police slogans was not from Sharpton's December 13 march, which The Washington Postdescribed as a "peaceful civil rights march led by families of the slain and organized by the Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network."

August 26 marks Women's Equality Day, commemorating the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution which gave women the right to vote. As President Obama emphasized in a proclamation marking the day, while there have been many advancements toward women's equality, "[t]here is still more work to do."

One place this remains true is in the conservative media, where the struggle for women's equality is stillmocked and diminished. Here are some of the recent lowlights:

Right-wing media are parroting local Republican officials and criticizing voter registration drives in Ferguson, Missouri, the site of intense protests after the death of unarmed teenager Michael Brown. Voting rights advocates argue that registering the electorate is crucial for the community to hold their government accountable, but right-wing media condemn these efforts as "liberal activism."

Fox News deceptively edited a clip of President Obama's statement on demonstrations following the shooting death of Michael Brown to suggest Obama is "choosing sides" and has "set an atmosphere" for discord and violence. In fact, Obama emphasized the importance of both "a basic respect for public order and the right to peaceful public protest."

Obama addressed the tense protests that followed the death of Brown -- an unarmed teen who was killed by police in Ferguson, Missouri -- in an August 15 statement that called for "healing," "peace and calm."

The August 15 edition ofFox & Friends promptly suggested Obama may have gone too far by noting that there is "no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protesters." In a teasing segment, an on-air graphic asked if the president was "choosing sides." Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. later argued that Obama "may have chosen a side too quickly with regard to this issue of excessive force." Though Johnson acknowledged that Obama "did to some extent" invoke reason, he concluded that "the shadings in his statements ... set an atmosphere -- unfortunately, I think -- for continued discord and possibly violence in such a community":

JOHNSON: Well, I don't know if he jumped in too quickly. He may have chosen a side too quickly with regard to this issue of excessive force and with regard to the police being an assaultive force on protesters. What I expect, and I think a lot of Americans expect, is the president to invoke the rule of law, to invoke reason. He did to some extent. But if you look at the shadings in his statements, he's clearly made a statement that the police were acting in an excessive way, that they were violating rights not only of the protesters, but of reporters on the scene. So when you do so, you set a scene and you set an atmosphere --unfortunately, I think -- for continued discord and possibly violence in such a community.

But the portion of Obama's statement that Fox & Friends aired during the segment was deceptively clipped to hide the fact that Obama also condemned "violence against police" as well as "excessive force against peaceful protests." Fox spliced together the Obama's comments that "I know that many Americans have been deeply disturbed by the images we've seen in the heartland of our country, as police have clashed with people protesting" and "There's also no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests," skipping over the portion of his statement that condemned violence against police (the portions Fox aired are in bold):

Now, second, I want to address something that's been in the news over the last couple of days and that's the situation in Ferguson, Missouri. I know that many Americans have been deeply disturbed by the images we've seen in the heartland of our country, as police have clashed with people protesting. Today, I'd like us all to take a step back and think about how we're going to be moving forward.

[...]

There is never an excuse for violence against police, or for those who would use this tragedy as a cover for vandalism or looting. There's also no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests, or to throw protestors in jail for lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights. And here, in the United States of America, police should not be bullying or arresting journalists who are just trying to do their jobs and report to the American people on what they see on the ground. Put simply, we all need to hold ourselves to a high standard, particularly those of us in positions of authority.

I know that emotions are raw right now in Ferguson and there are certainly passionate differences about what has happened. There are going to be different accounts of how this tragedy occurred. There are going to be differences in terms of what needs to happen going forward. That's part of our democracy. But let's remember that we're all part of one American family. We are united in common values, and that includes belief in equality under the law; a basic respect for public order and the right to peaceful public protest; a reverence for the dignity of every single man, woman and child among us; and the need for accountability when it comes to our government.

So now is the time for healing. Now is the time for peace and calm on the streets of Ferguson.

Even Fox News' Geraldo Rivera disagreed with this assessment. In a later segment, he pushed back against a similar suggestion from Fox & Friends host Elisabeth Hasselbeck, noting that Obama "tried his best to do a measured presentation."

60th Anniversary Of School Desegregation Is No Time To Talk About Race, According To Conservative Media

To right-wing media, commencement speeches observing the anniversary of the desegregation of U.S. schools is no time to talk about race in America.

First Lady Michelle Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder each gave commencementaddresses this month marking the 60th anniversary of the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision, when the Supreme Court ruled that state-mandated racial segregation of schools violated the U.S. Constitution.

Speaking to graduating high school seniors in Topeka, Kansas, the first lady referenced racial segregation that still exists today, according to The Kansas City Star:

Celebrating the 60th anniversary of the historic Supreme Court decision that outlawed segregated schools, Obama reminded the city where the case originated that the country is still racially divided -- although much more subtly than in the 1950s.

"Our laws may no longer separate us based on our skin color, but there's nothing in our constitution that says we have to eat together in the lunchroom or live together in the same neighborhoods," Obama told a full house at the 8,000-seat Kansas Expocentre.

At Morgan State University's commencement, Holder called on graduates to "take account of racial inequality, especially in its less obvious forms, and actively discuss ways to combat it."

Such references were cause for outrage from the right-wing echo chamber, which has frequentlylabeledprominent African-Americans "race hustlers" when they talk about racial issues in America.

Fox contributor and radio host Laura Ingraham attacked Obama's remarks as a "negative, cynical speech" that told kids their family members "were probably racists." Ingraham concluded that Obama was really just "projecting" her own racist beliefs.

Fox News tackled what it called the growing "problem" of female breadwinners, apparently jumping off a May 2013 Pew Research study finding a quarter of women outearn their husbands.

"Are female breadwinners a problem?" the network asked during the May 4 edition of Fox & Friends Sunday, promising "a debate about alpha women." Co-host Clayton Morris emphasized that he understood the "cultural argument" against female breadwinners, and expressed concern that the problem is rooted in the deeper, "biological, innate need for men to be the caveman":

MORRIS: Is there a problem with men earning less than women in the household, and do you think that it could throw off -- that it actually could cause big marital problems?

[...]

I get the cultural argument, guys. I mean, I can see how -- we can all weave our way through cultural issues. But isn't there some sort of biological, innate need for men to be the caveman? Go out and bring home the dinner and actually go out -- Is it emasculating if we don't do it?

Morris went on to ask Miss New York USA 2013 Joanne Nosuchinsky if she would "lose respect" for a male partner who stayed at home taking care of kids and "doing the laundry."

It's a topic the network has tackled before, much to the chagrin of its own female anchors.

Bundy Supporter: "We Were Actually Strategizing To Put All The Women Up At The Front"

Fox figures praised armed supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy as good, patriotic, hard-working Americans, ignoring their threats of violence against Bureau of Land Management (BLM) agents and indications that they were willing to put women in children in the line of fire.

Following its protracted campaign to smear Hillary Clinton as a dishonest and untrustworthy leader, Fox News is working overtime to explain away its own polling revealing that the American people trust the former Secretary of State more than the Republican Party and the slew of potential GOP presidential candidates.

According to Fox News' most recent poll data, 54 percent of registered voters consider Hillary Clinton "honest and trustworthy," a higher percentage than potential Republican 2016 presidential candidates Jeb Bush and Christie Christie received. At 49 percent, her favorability rating is higher than that of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and all GOP 2016 contenders.

Fox hosts Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Steve Doocy addressed Clinton's poll numbers on the April 17 edition of Fox & Friends by blaming liberal bias in the mainstream media. Doocy complained that Clinton was viewed as more trustworthy than Christie because the "mainstream media [...] beat the drum" against Christie rather than report on the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, in an effort to "take him out." According to Hasselbeck, the poll could be due to a perception bias that favors women:

DOOCY: You know what's interesting about that poll is -- remember it wasn't too long before the whole bridge thing hit the mainstream media fan where Chris Christie was actually leading Hillary Clinton. But then the mainstream media -- and some cynics on the right would say, well they were just trying to take Chris Christie out because he posed the greatest threat for Hillary Clinton -- nonstop coverage on all the channels about that Bridgegate thing.

And when you think about the two potential candidates, you've got Chris Christie who, you know, a while back was involved, his administration put up 25 traffic cones in Fort Lee, New Jersey, and generated hundreds of hours of mainstream media Bridgegate television. And then far screen right you've got Hillary Clinton who ran the State Department which denied extra security for Libya and four Americans wind up dying. I mean that is quite a contrast. You've got 25 orange cones versus four dead Americans -- but you've got the mainstream media and they beat the drum for Chris Christie, against him, and nobody on the other side of the channel is really covering Benghazi, unless us.

HASSELBECK: Well, perception and reality are two different things. I think it is. In the past women have polled better in terms of trust when it comes to politics. But again, as you mentioned, you know, this is a woman who has been ridden with scandal in the past particularly recently when we talk about Benghazi and four Americans dead. She is still found to be more trustworthy at this point. Go figure.

It's understandable that Fox would prefer to discount these findings. The network has put a significant amount of effort into skewing public opinion of Clinton, pushing repeatedly debunked myths in an attempt to tarnish her image in expectation of a presidential bid in 2016. These efforts are in stark contrast with Fox's willingness to hide information that could hurt potential GOP presidential candidates like Christie, whom Fox personalities have previously showered with praise.

Fox News' Benghazi coverage has sunk to relying on Roger Stone, the head of the now-defunct anti-Hillary Clinton group Citizens United Not Timid -- designed by Stone for its acronym -- as a source to continue pushing distortions surrounding the attacks.

The March 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends provided Stone with the platform to promote his new book The Benghazi Report. Together with co-host Clayton Morris, Stone recounted some of Fox's favorite Benghazi hoaxes, under the pretense that the myths will harm former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should she run for president in 2016. According to Stone, "There's no question Hillary lied and people died":

Fox selected the right guest to forward its effort to make the Benghazi tragedy into a scandal, as Stone has a long history of directing extreme and sexist attacks at Clinton. In 2008, Stone established an anti-Hillary Clinton political organization named Citizens United Not Timid - The organization frequently went by C.U.N.T., an acronym Stone settled on after reportedly failing to find an appropriate name to match the acronym B.I.T.C.H. In a January 28, 2008 Weekly Standard article, senior writer Matt Labash called Stone "a professional dirty trickster and high priest of political hijinks" before quoting him on the goals of Citizens United Not Timid: "[I]t's one-word education. That's our mission. No issues. No policy groups. No position papers. This is a simple committee with an unfortunate acronym."

Stone's group purported to "educate the American public about what Hillary Clinton really is":

Stone has never been known as an honest political actor. The New York Times has reported that, as a teenager, Stone hired a political mole, and the Washington Postdocumented Stone employing deceptive campaign tactics as far back as the 1970s. According to the Times, Stone was forced to resign from the campaign of New York state Sen. Joseph Bruno in August 2007 after "allegations that he left a threatening telephone message at the office of Gov. Eliot Spitzer's father."

Fox News is blasting Attorney General Eric Holder for allegedly telling state attorneys general that they don't have to enforce their states' gay marriage bans. In reality, Holder merely instructed the attorneys general that they don't have to defend such bans in court if they deem the laws unconstitutional.

It's unclear if Fox is misreading or simply willfully distorting what Holder actually said, but either way, the network is wrong.

Addressing the National Association of Attorneys General on February 25, Holder stated that if state attorneys general conclude that their gay marriage bans violate core constitutional principles like equal protection under the law, they're not obligated to defend those bans in court. Holder also explicitly stated that attorneys general shouldn't base such decisions on "policy or political disagreements" and should stick to legal analysis of the bans' constitutionality.

Holder's guidance doesn't mean that marriage equality bans won't be enforced while they're still in effect. However, an attorney general does have the option of refusing to defend laws that he or she believes won't survive judicial scrutiny. In such circumstances, other parties may then intervene to defend a law on the state's behalf. That's precisely what's currently happening in the court battle over Kentucky's same-sex marriage ban.

This isn't Fox News' first baseless attack on Holder when it comes to the defense of anti-gay marriage laws. It was only three years ago that Megyn Kelly asserted Holder had decided not to enforce the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) after the Obama administration dropped its defense of the law in court. But the administration kept enforcing DOMA as the law of the land until the Supreme Court struck down its core provision last summer.

Three years later, it appears that Fox remains unable - or unwilling - to get its facts right.

The New York Times was forced to issue two corrections after relying on Capitol Hill anonymous sourcing for its flawed report on emails from former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The Clinton debacle is the latest example of why the media should be careful when relying on leaks from partisan congressional sources -- this is far from the first time journalists who did have been burned.

Several Fox News figures are attempting to shift partial blame onto Samuel DuBose for his own death at the hands of a Cincinnati police officer during a traffic stop, arguing DuBose should have cooperated with the officer's instructions if he wanted to avoid "danger."

Iowa radio host Steve Deace is frequently interviewed as a political analyst by mainstream media outlets like NPR, MSNBC, and The Hill when they need an insider's perspective on the GOP primary and Iowa political landscape. However, these outlets may not all be aware that Deace gained his insider status in conservative circles by broadcasting full-throated endorsements of extreme right-wing positions on his radio show and writing online columns filled with intolerant views that he never reveals during main stream media appearances.